Living Wage: our survey says.......

cells

michaels wrote: »

In other words rather than increasing employment to increase production, instead other methods not using so much Labour will be used = less employment than otherwise.

maybe employment is always as full as it can be given the circumstances and that productivity just tells us how much stuff we get in return for the employment

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Love the distinction drawn in the report between 'raising productivity' and 'employing fewer staff' when of course they are the same thing. :rotfl:

Depends on the nature of a business. Productivity can be improved by the use of technology in some instances. Increased productivity doesn't necessarily result in fewer staff. If the increased output results in higher sales for the organisation concerned.

cells

gadgetmind wrote: »

Try suggesting that to them. They get uppity as it's kind of suggesting that their low pay is somehow their own fault!

i think a lot of people take up low paid work and then fit their lives and spending around that wage. They do not try to go out and find better paid work

if that wage goes (might be that they lose their job or the employer goes bust or just changes in consumer spending or technology or a change in laws or the min wage, anything) then in some cases they will seek and find better paid work as the only way is up from the min wage

gadgetmind

I had low paid work while at school (evenings, weekends) and TBH it made me double down on my education and direct acquisition of skills and knowledge because I sure didn't want to be doing that any longer than necessary!

Others I worked with constantly belittled the benefits of education, told me in no uncertain terms that I was wasting my time, and asked what possible use mathematics, electronics, computing, etc. could be in the real world.

I know exactly what all of them are doing now, and how much they earn. Call it a lucky guess.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Was Ed Miliband going to reduce tax credits as well?

That's not the question posed by the OP.

The question relates to the 'Living Wage' and whether "Osborne's political ruse" will lead to "confusion, higher prices, more productivity, less jobs", and so I was just wondering what was the difference between Osborne's living wage and Miliband's living wage.

If you want to discuss tax credits, there is already a thread about it, so there wouldn't be any point in starting another one.:)

purch

I'm sure we can all be proud that 54% of UK Employers pay some or all of their staff less than a living wage.

CLAPTON

purch wrote: »

I'm sure we can all be proud that 54% of UK Employers pay some or all of their staff less than a living wage.

the faux 'living wage' is a con only taken seriously by naves and fools.

it has no more relevance to anything real than the nonsense 'poverty level' or fuel poverty level'

all created by socialists and self servicing academics and well paid charity 'workers', using careful chosen words to fool the stupid and the naive.

there is poverty in the world where people have no access to clean water, even less than to running clean water

here these nonsense catch phase include people living in nice, centrally heated homes, over weight from too much food and going every where in their newish cars.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

That's not the question posed by the OP.

The question relates to the 'Living Wage' and whether "Osborne's political ruse" will lead to "confusion, higher prices, more productivity, less jobs", and so I was just wondering what was the difference between Osborne's living wage and Miliband's living wage.

If you want to discuss tax credits, there is already a thread about it, so there wouldn't be any point in starting another one.:)

I was helping you out .....As you say you were wondering about the difference and I'm telling you the difference.......... imo Miliband would have introduced his without a reduction in tax credits.You see as George says you have to look at the whole round of changes for them to make sense.:)

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I was helping you out .....As you say you were wondering about the difference and I'm telling you the difference.......... imo Miliband would have introduced his without a reduction in tax credits.You see as George says you have to look at the whole round of changes for them to make sense.:)

so under milliband, a person working in a coffer shop for 24 hours a week etc would earn even MORE than a junior doctor


those junior doctors shouldn't strike, they should have voted labour and worked part time in a coffee shop (making sure they had three kids and a nice state funded rented property) and been better off

what could go wrong?

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Do you mean to say that Ed M was wrong?

“We will set new ambitions for the minimum wage. A minimum wage by 2019 reaching its highest ever proportion of average earnings, rising to more than £8 an hour, because we are determined to write the next chapter in the fight to end low pay."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-manifesto-pledges-to-boost-minimum-wage-and-cut-deficit

Why rub it in to say he was wrong to support Tory policy.